Rush is right, says … Chris Matthews?

posted at 9:28 am on May 29, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Newsbusters captures this surprising moment from last night’s Hardball, in which we see just how much of the tingle has run out of Chris Matthews’ leg. Matthews praises Rush Limbaugh for his Bill Clinton impersonation, but that’s not what Matthews says Rush got right. Rush notes that when it came to picking dealmakers, Barack Obama really knew what he was doing — and Matthews apparently agrees:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Let`s take a look at Rush — I have to do this — Rush Limbaugh today impersonating Bill Clinton and assessing the situation. Let`s listen to Rushbo.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Oh dear!

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I`m going to kiss your (EXPLETIVE DELETED) if you kiss my (EXPLETIVE DELETED). I`ll make sure that you — if you come groveling to me, I`ll be happy to help you out here. Now look at what has happened here, they go to Bill Clinton. He`s famous for getting people jobs. Monica Lewinsky offered a job at Revlon. She was offered a job at the United Nations. She didn`t take any of them. But they`ve got Bill Clinton. Isn`t it great, folks, that they found a guy who they know will commit perjury to carry the water here?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Well sometimes even he can get it right. That was pretty good lampooning, I`ve got to say.

Clinton may not be able to close the sale, but he has a well-established flexibility on honesty … apparently, just what Obama wanted in a buffer. Having Matthews acknowledge the truth of that on MS-NBC demonstrates just how disillusioned and disenchanted Matthews has become, at least temporarily.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

But that’s not being untruthful or dishonest. That’s just not directly and clearly stating what happened.

Dear Lord, Mr. Shipley, shoot for the stars.

Now they have done that and it’s a whole lot of nothing. Less than what Reagan did back in ‘81 when he offered a PAID position to a candidate to drop out of a race.

Darlin, you can’t really believe that they offered him a job on an unpaid commission or advisory board. As a member of Congress he would be ineligible.

Again, if Obama lied about anything, what was that lie?

If it makes you feel better that he specifically did not lie but just his surrogates, have at it. Like I said earlier, he would have actually have to take questions in order lie and he made sure that didn’t happen, didn’t he?

It is funny how people like Mr. Nixon and Mr. Obama are similar. Both seem to have had the good will of the people, Nixon’s reelection poll numbers were solid and Mr. Obama’s popularity is still pretty high, but both did stupid, unnecessary, and counterproductive things. I think it is a serious character flaw.

Richard Nixon’s mistake, if you can call it that, was not the Watergate break-in, Nixon had no part or knowledge of it, his mistake was attempting to protect his people who were involved. The actual Watergate break-in was a very minor offense, the cover-up was a very serious act.

Richard Nixon’s loyalty to his staff resulted in a betrayal of the America people, it was a no win situation for Nixon. His staff perhaps may have mirrored Nixon’s own lack of ethics, it’s hard to say.

Nixon’s actions regarding his staff however displayed an admirable though misguided degree of honor. The shame is that Nixon did not show the same degree of honor to the American people as he did to his staff.

Second, how insulting is to Mr. Clinton, a “successful” two term president, to be contacted by The Won for help on this particular problem. Especially by a man who treated his wife in a very underhanded manner during the primaries.

More popcorn.

Cindy Munford on May 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM

Clinton is holding all the cards here, wait and see. Obama is an amateur next to Bubba.

I have never been completely sure of how much Mr. Nixon knew but it is a fact that the cover up was indeed his downfall. The country deserved more of his loyalty and consideration then those men. I am still enough of a partisan to have a visceral dislike for John Dean.

Richard Nixon’s mistake, if you can call it that, was not the Watergate break-in, Nixon had no part or knowledge of it, his mistake was attempting to protect his people who were involved. The actual Watergate break-in was a very minor offense, the cover-up was a very serious act.
doriangrey on May 29, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Actually, not only was there no crime on Nixon’s part; there wasn’t even a cover-up either.

What Nixon did was exactly the same as what every major political candidate has always done: tell someone “Get me everything you can on my opponent’s operation – but don’t tell me how you got it.” The only “coverup” Nixon “participated” in was in not confessing to a crime he didn’t commit.

That was absolutely nothing but a Salem witch hunt, from start to finish: the only possible way to prove innocence was to admit guilt.

I agree. I think we have seen in the past eighteen months that regardless of how he is portrayed by this fan club media, we are dealing with a rank amateur. The biggest determinate of how this comes out is how Mr. Clinton wants to be perceive by history. He owes the president nothing.

And Cindy, I believe Slestak was asked if he was offered a job so he would drop out of the race. He said yes. I find it entirely plausable that, considering his conversation with Clinton lasted about a minute that he confused the advisory board position with a “job” or thought the distinction wasn’t big enough to correct.

Even if they did offer him a job and are now lying about it (which would be incredibly stupid and there’s no evidence of that), then that act would be EXACTLY what Reagan did in 1981. And there was no mass freak out by the left then like there is on the right now. You know, because you guys don’t care about anything else beside destroying Obama. Damn ANY objectivity, benefit of the doubt, reality, research, fact. You just hate Obama and want to tear him down.

If Obama tried to increase oversight of overshore drilling last year, you guys would have absolutely HAMMERED him over it. Now you’re hammering him over the fact that he didn’t. It’s HIS fault that regulators and BP were so cozy. And to a degree, that is correct. He didn’t fix the lax governance over those rigs. But if he had tried, you would have fought him over it.

I can’t believe the just blatant disregard for facts or reality you guys have in your pursuit to ruin Obama. There are no rules. Must be fun for you guys.

And Cindy, I believe Slestak was asked if he was offered a job so he would drop out of the race. He said yes.Tom_Shipley on May 29, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Really? Out of the clear blue sky someone asked him if the White House had offered him a job to get out of the primary? That’s so sweet. Yes it is EXACTLY what Mr. Reagan did without the denials and lies. Your right it is incredibly stupid that they are lying about it. As for increasing offshore drilling oversight and whether or not we would have hammered him over it, you might be right. But I am more likely to believe that tougher regulations while increasing opportunity to drill would have been something most would have embraced. While we (the Right)are for more domestic energy (nuclear) the habit you guys have of suggesting we don’t care about impact is ridiculous. Come on, admit your guy is handling this horribly and just be thankful that his devoted media will keep it from getting out of control.

The Spider turned him round about, and went into his den,
For well he knew the silly Fly would soon come back again:
So he wove a subtle web, in a little corner sly,
And set his table ready, to dine upon the Fly.
Then he came out to his door again, and merrily did sing,
“Come hither, hither, pretty Fly, with the pearl and silver wing;
Your robes are green and purple — there’s a crest upon your head;
Your eyes are like the diamond bright, but mine are dull as lead!”

Alas, alas! how very soon this silly little Fly,
Hearing his wily, flattering words, came slowly flitting by;
With buzzing wings she hung aloft, then near and nearer drew,
Thinking only of her brilliant eyes, and green and purple hue —
Thinking only of her crested head — poor foolish thing! At last,
Up jumped the cunning Spider, and fiercely held her fast.
He dragged her up his winding stair, into his dismal den,
Within his little parlour — but she ne’er came out again!

And now dear little children, who may this story read,
To idle, silly flattering words, I pray you ne’er give heed:
Unto an evil counsellor, close heart and ear and eye,
And take a lesson from this tale, of the Spider and the Fly.

Richard Nixon’s mistake, if you can call it that, was not the Watergate break-in, Nixon had no part or knowledge of it, his mistake was attempting to protect his people who were involved. The actual Watergate break-in was a very minor offense, the cover-up was a very serious act.

doriangrey on May 29, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Nixon’s biggest mistake other than fundamental dishonesty was taping everything that went on in the Oval Office. If it hadn’t been for those tapes, Watergate probably wouldn’t have gone very far. Just as this thing here wouldn’t be known if Sestak hadn’t been flapping his gums, probably to enhance his stature.

Watergate was totally on Dean’s head; Nixon had ZERO foreknowledge of the op.

The whole point of the break-in was to a spirit off a list of call girls that the DNC kept for entertaining VIPs; one the hookers in that binder was Dean’s mistress.

Nixon’s ‘crime’ was loyalty to Dean, who let him swing rather than coming clean.

The CW that Nixon authorized the break-in is an utter lie.

A lie Nixon let stand because of his misplaced sense of loyalty.

Dean threatened a lawsuit when the book [whose name escapes me at the moment] came out telling this side of Watergate; he never made good on that threat.

That’s all the proof I need on the matter.

Nixon was guilty of many things, but Watergate wasn’t one of them.

Obozo can’t make the same claim, but unlike Nixon, he’ll probably survive this. And he has no lack of people to take the fall for him and unlike Nixon, isn’t burdened by honor, or loyalty (as I measure it).

In an interview earlier this week, Ed Rollins, who will become the president’s chief political adviser in January, said Hayakawa would be offered an administration post if he decided not to seek re-election. No offer has been made directly to Hayakawa, Rollins said.

Similarly, Hayakawa said in a statement, “I have not contacted the White House in regard to any administration or ambassadorial post, and they have not been in contact with me.”

And this compares to the current situation in what way?

Back in February Rep. Sestak indicated he had been offered a high level job to leave the race, and the White House said nothing of note. Now their candidate of choice has lost and Rep. Sestak is backtracking on what he said.

This is far different than a political advisor opining on a talk show about a job offer if someone leaves the race. That is not a promise of a job but of a job offer and is used to indicate to a long standing Senator that his time in office is acknowledged and appreciated. There is a disconnect between the ‘Reagan did this too!’, meme and actually looking at what has happened in each instance.

How is this the same as the current situation done behind the scenes with indications of a high level job as a quid pro quo used by a candidate to run as an anti-establishment candidate and then follow the line given that it wasn’t such an important job and he didn’t want it anyways? How is the case in 1981 even close to the current one? The dissimilarities are immense, starting with the tv show opining openly and in public, and not in private. That is not indicated in the 1981 case but is, explicitly, part of the Sestak case.

If it was so unimportant then why not do it publicly or admit that it was done back in FEB 2010? If it was important then why didn’t Sestak actually do anything about reporting a crime that had just been committed as part of his Oath as a Representative? He cannot have it both ways on this, neither can the Obama Administration. The secrecy, itself, is telling. The tunes changing to become the same one, is telling.

Even if it wasn’t a crime, the cover-up and coordination at this point is damning in and of itself.

I think Clinton has Obama by the balls on this one, and he knew this would be the case before he called Sestak. Now, Bubba calls all the shots or Obambam’s precendency is toast, with one little statement to the media about what REALLY happened. Well played, Bubba.

Fishoutofwater on May 29, 2010 at 11:26 AM

I was thinking the same thing – the Clintons have been waiting for a chance like this ever since BamBam cheated Hillary out of the Dem nomination. And BamBam is so politically naive, he is going along with this. What do you want to bet that Bubba offered to “take the fall” on this one, knowing full well that he would have O exactly where he needs him to be?

I also thought that Bubba was exceptionally clever to convince the Dems that the American people WANTED the healthcare bill to pass – he knew full well that they wanted anything but, and he knew that if it was passed on O’s watch, his popularity would drop like a rock.

Rush said on his show on day last week the Chrissy had
guest hosted his show in the past Many moons ago. Rush
said he knew Chrissy was a lib but he wasn’t off the chart
whacky at that time. Even Rush can’t explain why Chrissy
has gone soooo far down the liberal tube .

Maybe Chrissy is starting to claw his way back to just
being a liberal and is leaving the far left stuff behind.
Just a thought . . . or a pipedream.